Saturday, March 7, 2020 at 7:39AM Impaired operation includes a "vessel". And a canoe can be a vessel: R. v. Sillars, 2018 ONCJ 816. For more details on this case, see 2019 ONCJ 57, 2019 ONCJ 58, 2019 ONCJ 474 and 2019 ONCJ 710, where he received a 6 year sentence for impaired operation of a vessel causing death. Mr. Sillars has appealed.
Saturday, February 29, 2020 at 3:03PM An officer made an ASD demand on Mr. Veen and instructed Mr. Veen on how to provide a breath sample into the ASD. He raised the ASD to Mr. Veen’s mouth but Mr. Veen did not provide sufficient air to produce a reading. The officer arrested Mr. Veen and transported him to the District Office. Mr. Veen was detained for 1 hour and 36 minute after his arrest. The officer admitted that he did not turn his mind to whether it was in the public interest to arrest and detain Mr. Veen. When it was suggested that the offence was completed and he was not required to arrest and detain Mr. Veen, he agreed and said that he could have issued a promise to appear and released Mr. Veen at the scene, but did not do so. The trial judge found an unlawful arrest and stayed the charge, R. v. Veen, 2019 ABPC 55, and that was upheld on appeal: R. v. Veen, 2020 ABQB 99
Sunday, February 23, 2020 at 8:07AM Mr. Cramer was convicted of impaired operation after a trial, but his conviction appeal was allowed and the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal upheld his acquittal:
The issue of impairment must be adjudicated by taking into account the whole of the relevant evidence. Behaviour that is a marked departure from normal will typically carry more probative weight than behaviour that is not a marked departure. However, there is no bright line that says impairment can only be inferred from behaviour that is a marked departure from the norm. R. v. Cramer, 2019 SKCA 118
Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 12:02PM A DRE officer demanded a urine sample from Mr. Tahmasebi, who asked to speak to a lawyer again, but the DRE officer responded that he had already spoken to a lawyer. Mr. Tahmasebi refused to comply with the urine sample demand so he was charged with refusal and convicted at trial, with that conviction being upheld on appeal:
Neither a DRE demand nor an oral fluid or urine sample demand is a change of circumstances from those facing a person detained on a charge of impaired driving. A person who has received legal advice after such a charge does not face a new or emergent situation when either demand is made. R. v. Tahmasebi, 2020 ONCA 47
Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 9:09AM The provisions of the new "Offences Relating to Conveyances" part of the Criminal Code refer to requiring "reasonable grounds to believe" in a number of sections. However, what does that requirement mean? The British Columbia Court of Appeal reviewed that issue in R. v. Glendinning, 2019 BCCA 365:
The arresting officer must have subjectively believed an offence had occurred and that belief must have been objectively reasonable from the viewpoint (or through the “lens”) of a person with the officer’s experience and training.